Here's a Daily Howler excerpt quoting a recent Margaret "all grown up" Carlson passage:
===
[From Carlson's] latest column— a clip which helps us recall the type of nasty sex-obsession which has long driven this cohort:
MARGARET CARLSON (1/23/08): With Bill [Clinton]'s promise to go “church to church” in South Carolina, it seems obvious that the campaign, if not the potential presidency to come, is two for the price of one. The candidate herself left South Carolina to her husband, the “first black president,” for three days while she headed to California to campaign.
It just might help. He gets above-the-fold coverage for his attacks on Obama and her forays into being the first black first lady haven't played that well. Her full-throated, thickly accented rendition of the old spiritual, “I Don't Feel No Ways Tired,” at a Selma, Alabama, church last March was widely imitated—and not as the highest form of flattery.
As for her husband, who would have thought that the silver-haired philanthropist would do more damage as a politician than a playboy? The campaign had discounted the trouble a bimbo eruption could cause. Anything less than sex under the nose of his daughter and wife, and any less proof of it than a stained blue dress, would be overlooked by a public beyond being shocked. A would-be Gennifer Flowers would have to come armed with DNA results or be dismissed as a deluded stalker imagining an affair with Clinton.
“Anything less than sex under the nose of his daughter!” These are truly nasty people—as they were in 1998, as they were for two years after that as they punished Clinton’s successor, sending George Bush to the White House. The obsession expressed during that campaign have put the dead of Iraq in the ground. But this obsession will never change—their hatreds will only get harder.
===
Again, we must return to this YRHT analysis of one of the most important Daily Howler posts ever. In it, Somerby wrote:
With the presumptive defeat of Candidate Clinton, a 16-year story will come to an end. This gives Democrats a new chance to take control of the narratives told about its leaders. By now, it’s abundantly clear that a Nominee Clinton would be subjected to endless nonsense throughout the campaign, as was the case with Candidate Gore all through 1999 and 2000. These attacks would be based on sixteen years of mainstream demonology— and it’s clear that many Dems and libs believe many parts of these RNC tales. (Let’s not pretend that we don’t.) Obama’s nomination lets Dems start again. And, with new, more aggressive liberal institutions in place, it will be harder—much, much harder—to assemble the welter of Demon Tales that were used to trash the Clintons and Gore. The defeat of Clinton will let Democrats and liberals at long last start over again.
Do you understand how important that is? Yes, Obama will get the "treatment", but he won't get the Clinton treatment! Is that fair-- of course not! Should liberals continue to militate against the Clinton Rules-- of course we should! But this project will take years of hard work and vigilance-- and it will be nearly impossible to accomplish during another Clinton presidency. In the next 8 months or so, history can be changed. As Somerby puts it, "A 16 year story will come to an end" if Obama wins. The press will reward Obama if he beats the (hated) all-powerful Clinton "machine". He's a media darling. (Now, that's not to say Obama won't get "the treatment". There will be disclosures, and criticisms... perhaps even a "scandal". His campaign roller coaster will have to go through dark tunnels... that's the nature of the beast. But jeebus, it won't be anything near what Hillary will have to go through-- day in, day out. With Hillary, you get all the baggage, and a much smaller electoral map, and therefore much smaller coattails.
I mean, just look at what the media dropped on Hillary the day of the very important California Debate, which preceded Super Duper Tuesday. Just look at this sampling. It's just brutal.
ABC: Clinton Remained Silent As Wal-Mart Fought Unions
WSJ editorial: Hillary's Smear Campaign
NYT: After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton
NYT: Nicholas Kristof drops the "Dynasty" question on Hillary, which actually got incorporated into the debate.
Wapo: Broder:
But in the past two weeks, there has been a remarkable shift of establishment opinion against her and against the prospect of placing the party's 2008 chances in the hands of her husband, Bill Clinton.
The prominence of his role in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and the mean-spiritedness of his attacks on Obama, stunned many Democrats. Clinton's behavior underlined the warning raised in this column before Iowa, by a prominent veteran of the Clinton administration, that the prospect of two presidents both named Clinton sharing a single White House would be a huge problem for the Democrats in November if Hillary Clinton is the nominee.
Plus utter crap like this and (this-- "Clinton has a weird conservative religious streak").
I mean, my gracious!-- all of this was dropped on January 31st. That's just ONE DAY'S worth of hit pieces, released on the morning before a crucial debate. And that daily brutality seems just par for the course. It goes unnoticed, because it's the Clinton Rules.
In contrast, here's an account of the big New York Times drug expose of Obama, released on the day of the LA, WA and NE caucuses and primary. As the link makes plain, the subtext of the story is about how much of a non-story Obama's teenage drug use is. It even raises the possibility that this ambitious young man publicly exaggerated his drug use for some bizarre reason. That's hilarious.
Surely the sledding will get tougher for Obama, but it will never approach getting Clinton/Gore tough. That much is very clear. Obama is a shortcut towards the opportunity of creating newer and better political narratives for Democrats. Clinton is a long, grueling detour.
Is that fair? Of course not. Still, for this reason and many others, I advise us to take the shortcut.
Labels: Elections and Campaigns, Hillary, Obama
